Valle del Sol, Inc. v. State of Arizona, No. 12-17152 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Arizona’s 2010 Senate Bill 1070 includes various immigration-related provisions, passed in response to the growing presence of unauthorized aliens in Arizona. The stated purpose of S.B. 1070 is “to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and government agencies in Arizona” by creating “a variety of immigration-related state offenses and defin[ing] the immigration-enforcement authority of Arizona’s state and local law enforcement officers.” Section 13-2929 of the Bill attempts to criminalize transporting, concealing, harboring, or attempting to transport, conceal, or harbor an unauthorized alien under certain circumstances and to criminalize inducing or encouraging an unauthorized alien to come to or reside in Arizona. The district court entered a preliminary injunction with respect to 13-2929 on the basis that it is preempted by federal law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the statute, as written, is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause because one of its key elements—being “in violation of a criminal offense”—is unintelligible. The provision is also preempted by federal law and invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction in an action challenging Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2929, which attempts to criminalize the harboring and transporting of unauthorized aliens within the state of Arizona. The panel first held that an individual plaintiff, pastor Luz Santiago, and the organizational plaintiffs had standing to challenge Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2929. The panel determined that Santiago had established a credible threat of prosecution and that the organizational plaintiffs had shown that their missions had been frustrated and their resources diverted as a result of § 13-2929. The panel held that the statute as written was void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause because one of its key elements—being “in violation of a criminal offense”—was unintelligible. The panel further held that the provision which attempted to criminalize the harboring and transporting of unauthorized aliens, however it was interpreted, was preempted by federal law and thus invalid under the Supremacy Clause. The panel concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that plaintiffs established the elements necessary to grant a preliminary injunction. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Bea stated that he concurred with the majority regarding standing and the void for vagueness doctrine, as well as its holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that plaintiffs established the elements necessary to grant a preliminary injunction. Judge Bea dissented from Part III of the majority opinion, stating that because this case was resolved on other grounds, namely vagueness, the court should not have reached the preemption issue.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.